Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
2
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
Autores
Citação
APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY, v.15, n.2, p.163-172, 2017
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil. Objective The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil. Methods We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment) Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme (Biblioteca Regional de Medicina), BVS ECOS (Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health), and SISREBRATS (Sistema de Informacao da Rede Brasileira de Avaliacao de Tecnologias em Saude [Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies]) from 1980 to 2013. Articles were included if they were CUAs according to the classification devised by Drummond et al. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and carried out data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through consultation with a third reviewer. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Results Of the 535 health economic evaluations (HEEs) relating to Brazil, only 40 were CUAs and therefore included in the analysis. Most studies adhered to methodological guidelines for quality of reporting and 77.5% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the health outcome. Of these studies, 51.6% did not report the population used to elicit preferences for outcomes and 45.2% used a specific population such as expert opinion. The preference elicitation method was not reported in 58.1% of these studies. The majority (80.6%) of studies did not report the instrument used to derive health state valuations and no publication reported whether tariffs (or preference weights) were national or international. No study mentioned the methodology used to estimate QALYs. Conclusions Many published Brazilian cost-utility studies adhere to key recommended general methods for HEE; however, the use of QALY calculations is far from being the current international standard. Development of health preferences research can contribute to quality improvement of health technology assessment reports in Brazil.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/20138
Referências
  1. Andrade MV, 2013, CAD SAUDE PUBLICA, V29, pS59, DOI 10.1590/0102-311X00021113
  2. Andrade M. V., 2013, VALUE HLTH REGIONAL, V2, P405
  3. Brauer CA, 2006, VALUE HEALTH, V9, P213, DOI 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00116.x
  4. Campolina AG, 2011, CIENC SAUDE COLETIVA, V16, P3103, DOI 10.1590/S1413-81232011000800010
  5. Cooper Nicola, 2005, J Health Serv Res Policy, V10, P245, DOI 10.1258/135581905774414187
  6. Coyle D, 2002, EVIDENCE BASED HLTH, P55
  7. Cruz LN, 2011, VALUE HEALTH, V14, pS108, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2011.05.012
  8. Centre for Reviews and Disseminations, 2009, SYST REV EC EV CRDS
  9. Decimoni TC, 2014, VALUE HEALTH, V17, pA438, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.1138
  10. Drummond MF, 1996, BRIT MED J, V313, P275
  11. Drummond MF, 2015, METHODS EC EVALUATIO, P464
  12. Drummond M.F., 2005, METHODS EC EVALUATIO
  13. Drummond MF, 2008, INT J TECHNOL ASSESS, V24, P244, DOI 10.1017/S0266462308080343
  14. Freemantle N, 1997, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V12, P10
  15. Gavaza P, 2012, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V30, P925, DOI 10.2165/11589450-000000000-00000
  16. Gavaza P, 2010, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V28, P539, DOI 10.2165/11536170-000000000-00000
  17. Haagsma JA, 2014, POPUL HEALTH METR, V12, DOI 10.1186/s12963-014-0020-2
  18. Hoomans T, 2012, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V30, P219, DOI 10.2165/11539850-000000000-00000
  19. Hunter RM, 2015, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V33, P355, DOI 10.1007/s40273-014-0247-6
  20. Husereau D, 2013, VALUE HEALTH, V16, P231, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002
  21. Iglesias CP, 2005, INT J TECHNOL ASSESS, V21, P1
  22. Menezes ReM, 2015, QUAL LIFE RES, V24, P2761
  23. Kularatna S, 2013, VALUE HEALTH, V16, P1091, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2013.05.006
  24. Lee KS, 2005, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V23, P709, DOI 10.2165/00019053-200523070-00005
  25. Leite ID, 2015, CAD SAUDE PUBLICA, V31, P1551, DOI 10.1590/0102-311X00111614
  26. TeIEDdCeT Secretaria de Ciencia, 2014, DIR MET DIR AV EC, P132
  27. Neumann PJ, 2015, VALUE HEALTH, V18, P271, DOI [10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.002, 10.1016/j.jval.2014.13.002]
  28. Neumann PJ, 2009, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V27, P861, DOI 10.2165/11312720-000000000-00000
  29. Santos M, 2016, MED DECIS MAKING, V36, P253, DOI 10.1177/0272989X15613521
  30. Silva HP, 2012, REV SAUDE PUBL, V46, P83, DOI 10.1590/s0034-89102012005000060
  31. Stalmeier PFM, 2001, MED DECIS MAKING, V21, P200, DOI 10.1177/02729890122062497
  32. Teerawattananon Y, 2007, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V25, P467, DOI 10.2165/00019053-200725060-00003
  33. Thorat T, 2015, VALUE HLTH REG ISSUE, V6, P7
  34. Traebert J, 2016, J INFECT PUBLIC HEAL, V9, P181, DOI 10.1016/j.jiph.2015.09.003
  35. Victora CG, 2011, LANCET, V377, P2042, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60055-X
  36. Weinstein MC, 1996, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V276, P1253, DOI 10.1001/jama.276.15.1253
  37. Whitehead SJ, 2010, BRIT MED BULL, V96, P5, DOI 10.1093/bmb/ldq033

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MPR
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICESP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/24
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/38
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/39